ObjectiveThe standard treatment of superficial venous insufficiency consists of endovenous thermal ablation of the refluxing main trunk, combined with side branch treatment, if needed. Side branches are often treated with phlebectomy concurrently or as a staged procedure. Whether the delayed treatment is justifiable, taking into consideration the long-term outcomes of the treatment and the need for later interventions, remains an open question. The objective of this study is to evaluate the necessity of immediate treatment of varicosities and to compare it with delayed treatment after mechanochemical ablation of the main trunk of the great saphenous vein (GSV). MethodsVenous outpatient clinic patients with varicosities (clinical classification C2-C4) resulting from GSV insufficiency were randomized to receive mechanochemical ablation only or mechanochemical ablation with concurrent phlebectomies at a ratio of 1:1. After eligibility assessment of 1149 patients, 85 met the inclusion criteria, which were age 20 to 70 years, ultrasound-verified GSV insufficiency, mean GSV diameter of 5 to 10 mm in the thigh, and provision of written informed consent. The exclusion criteria were deep venous reflux, peripheral arterial disease, pregnancy, lymphedema, body mass index of >40 kg/m2, an allergy to the sclerosant, a history of deep vein thrombosis, and/or any form of coagulopathy. The primary outcome was the need for sclerotherapy at 3 months after treatment. The secondary outcome measures, which were assessed at 3 months and 1 year, were complications, duration of sick leave, overall patient satisfaction, and GSV occlusion rate. ResultsAt 3 months, 13.2% of the patients randomized to delayed treatment needed sclerotherapy. No statistically significant difference was found in the occlusion rate of the GSV at either 3 months (mechanochemical ablation only group, 94.7%; mechanochemical ablation with phlebectomy group, 100%; P = 1.000) or 1 year (mechanochemical ablation only group, 89.7%; mechanochemical ablation with phlebectomy group, 94.4%; P = 1.000). The groups were also similar in terms of disease-specific quality of life (P = .964), health-related quality of life (P = .337), and the other outcome measures within the study period. ConclusionsThe need for reintervention did not increase and the patients' quality of life and satisfaction with the procedure were similar at 1 year when mechanochemical ablation only was compared with mechanochemical ablation plus phlebectomy.
Read full abstract